So far this is true, but now he claims that as you approach the speed of light, both the numerator and denominator go to zero, so instead of infinite mass you get 0/0 which is zero. He then naturally concludes that all matter turns into light/photon field (i.e. zero mass) when it reaches the speed of light. No seriously, that's what he's saying.

On the right side of the equation, yeah, as v approaches c, c2-v2 approaches 0, so both the numerator and denominator go to 0 as well. I always understood that 0/0 was undefined. I also thought that as v approached c, m became infinite. Or was I misinformed?

So far this is true, but now he claims that as you approach the speed of light, both the numerator and denominator go to zero, so instead of infinite mass you get 0/0 which is zero. He then naturally concludes that all matter turns into light/photon field (i.e. zero mass) when it reaches the speed of light. No seriously, that's what he's saying.

Galloping Galoshes:On the right side of the equation, yeah, as v approaches c, c2-v2 approaches 0, so both the numerator and denominator go to 0 as well. I always understood that 0/0 was undefined. I also thought that as v approached c, m became infinite. Or was I misinformed?

0/0 is only 'sorta' undefined in this case. 0/0 as an absolute number is indeed undefined, but a ratio that *goes* to 0/0 in some limit can still be well-behaved, and there are rules for how you evaluate such a limit. In this case the rule is 'stop being silly and simplify your equation by not adding a completely redundant factor of root(c2-v2)/root(c2-v2)'.

The mangled auto-translation is kind of hard to wade through, but basically he seems to be making the same schoolboy mistake that many people make when first confronted with the idea that [for non-accelerated frames] you can't really say which is at rest and which is moving. In other words, he has written a paper on relativity that begins by rejecting relativity.

Galloping Galoshes:On the right side of the equation, yeah, as v approaches c, c2-v2 approaches 0, so both the numerator and denominator go to 0 as well. I always understood that 0/0 was undefined. I also thought that as v approached c, m became infinite. Or was I misinformed?

Yes to the first, no to the second.

When you have an equation that has a singularity at some point, as you do here, you have to analyze what happens as it approaches the neighborhood of that singularity, i.e. find the limit. To give a very simple example, consider the formula (x/x^2). At x = 0, you get 0/0. Undefined? No. On closer examination you can see that if you divide through by x, the formula is identical to (1/x); and it's clear what that does as x approaches 0: it tends to infinity. And with a proper formal analysis you can show that it does so smoothly. (And in case you're wondering, this loose word sketch can be turned into formal, rigorous math). So this particular equation is perfectly well behaved as far as mathematicians are concerned.

Now take a look his equation: if you square (c^2-v^2)^1/2/(c^2-v^2) it is essentially the same as (x/x^2), and the same analysis works. Although it naively looks like 0/0 when v =c, it is perfectly well behaved as v approaches c.

Galloping Galoshes:On the right side of the equation, yeah, as v approaches c, c2-v2 approaches 0, so both the numerator and denominator go to 0 as well. I always understood that 0/0 was undefined. I also thought that as v approached c, m became infinite. Or was I misinformed?

Yes, it goes to infinity. 1/x clearly goes to infinity at x->0, right? And x/x2 is the exact SAME thing as 1/x, so it also goes to infinity. You can't say the mass now goes to zero because you multiplied the original equation by x/x.

Generally speaking, to figure out if a function goes to zero or infinity (or some other value) at some limit, you need to evaluate the numerator and denominator separately, and essentially determine which goes to its limit "faster". The general method for doing this is called l'Hôpital's rule.

People should have more open minds to this sort of thing, even Einstein revised his theories in later years.. and as out understanding grows even the things we "know" today to be truths might be proved wrong or inaccurate...

Icetech3:People should have more open minds to this sort of thing, even Einstein revised his theories in later years.. and as out understanding grows even the things we "know" today to be truths might be proved wrong or inaccurate...

P.S. does this guys work make a sonic screwdriver possible?

1/10. And that 1 only for the sonic screwdriver reference.

And just in case you were actually serious: There is a difference between "open minded" and "ignoring the high school math level error".

If you seriously want to "revise" Special Relativity, what you need to do first is show that your theory is consistent with the mountains of experimental evidence that supports SR (by the way, his isn't); and the second is propose an experimental test that would deliver different results from those predicted by Special Relativity. Only when you have passed those two thresholds do you deserve the privilege of being considered with an open mind.

Icetech3:People should have more open minds to this sort of thing, even Einstein revised his theories in later years.. and as out understanding grows even the things we "know" today to be truths might be proved wrong or inaccurate...

Yes but this particular gentleman's ideas are garbage, and they're published in an equally garbage online "journal".

No joke, half the articles I found on the "Journal of Theoretics" were broken geocities links. For god's sake geocities, man!

czetie:Icetech3: People should have more open minds to this sort of thing, even Einstein revised his theories in later years.. and as out understanding grows even the things we "know" today to be truths might be proved wrong or inaccurate...

P.S. does this guys work make a sonic screwdriver possible?

1/10. And that 1 only for the sonic screwdriver reference.

And just in case you were actually serious: There is a difference between "open minded" and "ignoring the high school math level error".

It's okay, most physics departments usually get at least one with each incoming batch of freshmen. They've spent enough time in the new-age section of the bookstore to think that they're going to come in and overturn decades of rigorously proven scientific theory using some quaint offshoot that has been disproven many times over by reputable scientists. They can be annoying at times when they like to hang around in the physics lounge and goad people into arguments, but they're ultimately harmless.

StrangeQ:czetie: Icetech3: People should have more open minds to this sort of thing, even Einstein revised his theories in later years.. and as out understanding grows even the things we "know" today to be truths might be proved wrong or inaccurate...

P.S. does this guys work make a sonic screwdriver possible?

1/10. And that 1 only for the sonic screwdriver reference.

And just in case you were actually serious: There is a difference between "open minded" and "ignoring the high school math level error".

It's okay, most physics departments usually get at least one with each incoming batch of freshmen. They've spent enough time in the new-age section of the bookstore to think that they're going to come in and overturn decades of rigorously proven scientific theory using some quaint offshoot that has been disproven many times over by reputable scientists. They can be annoying at times when they like to hang around in the physics lounge and goad people into arguments, but they're ultimately harmless.

This is the frustrating thing in evolution discussions. "What if...(longwinded recounting of things that have been repeatedly demonstrated false)""Here, let me show you the last hundred times we did what you request, with every variable controlled for." "Baww, you're not taking this seriously."

StrangeQ:czetie: Icetech3: People should have more open minds to this sort of thing, even Einstein revised his theories in later years.. and as out understanding grows even the things we "know" today to be truths might be proved wrong or inaccurate...

P.S. does this guys work make a sonic screwdriver possible?

1/10. And that 1 only for the sonic screwdriver reference.

And just in case you were actually serious: There is a difference between "open minded" and "ignoring the high school math level error".

It's okay, most physics departments usually get at least one with each incoming batch of freshmen. They've spent enough time in the new-age section of the bookstore to think that they're going to come in and overturn decades of rigorously proven scientific theory using some quaint offshoot that has been disproven many times over by reputable scientists. They can be annoying at times when they like to hang around in the physics lounge and goad people into arguments, but they're ultimately harmless.

Yeah, I had one in my first year math class (and he had the room next to me). He spent a lot of the course trying to get the lecturer to accept that it's just silly to add velocities the way SR says you should, and that if you are traveling towards a photon then obviously it's relative speed must be more than C.

He was also an ardent fan of Velikovsky, you won't be surprised to hear.

DeltaPunch:Snort: The DOI (http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3660803) is busted.

Should go to: http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3660803

Looks like you have to subscribe. I posted a PDF of his paper above, in case anyone wants to look at it.

The paper you linked to is from 2004, the best I could find of the current paper is this, again requiring a subscription to view the whole thing. There is enough there to get the gist of it: Section II has some name dropping and not-quite-articulating what these esteemed authors said or how it is being used in his reasoning, as if the informed reader will be able to follow easily. In section III, he seems to be trying to sneak an incorrect definition of velocity by us, or maybe just changes signs on v so quickly he hopes the reader loses track. Section IV is leading to a Miss Teen South Carolina style conclusion.

How can he maintain that there are real stationary objects? Even as the universe itself expands, that stationary object is moving at the speed of the universe's expansion. That was Einstein's entire point.

Jefferson Biatchmagnet:The paper you linked to is from 2004, the best I could find of the current paper is this, again requiring a subscription to view the whole thing. There is enough there to get the gist of it: Section II has some name dropping and not-quite-articulating what these esteemed authors said or how it is being used in his reasoning, as if the informed reader will be able to follow easily. In section III, he seems to be trying to sneak an incorrect definition of velocity by us, or maybe just changes signs on v so quickly he hopes the reader loses track. Section IV is leading to a Miss Teen South Carolina style conclusion.

OK let's see if I can shoot one of these down (sorry for text dump):

There must be a similarity in the observations made either from the receiver end or from the source end [the receiver and the source are relative terms. The observation can be made from either side simultaneously, which is in agreement with all the cases of special theory of relativity (STR) with regard to their reciprocity effects]. Obviously when observed from the source, the observer is considered moving with velocity "-v" (in relative motion, when the source moves with +v relative to observer, the observer moves with -v relative to source), resulting in derivation [[lambda].sub.S] = [[lambda].sub.0] [square root of (1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)] instead of [[lambda].sub.S] = [[lambda].sub.0] [square root of (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)] which implies that the observer is also receding from the source. Obviously when "B" observes "A" receding from him, A stands to observe that B is also receding from him. The pointer is, whether we get the same result in a situation where the source is approaching the observer either? In this situation, the velocity is considered -v to find [[lambda].sub.0] = [[lambda].sub.S] [square root of (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)], which indicates an apparent decrease in the wavelength received by the observer. Conversely, when observed from the source we get [[lambda].sub.S] = [[lambda].sub.0] [square root of (1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)] which does not undergo any change by virtue of velocity being compulsorily "+v"(when the source moves with -v relative to observer, the observer moves with +v relative to source.). This indicates that the wavelength is increasing. Here, when B observes that A is receding from him, A observes that B is approaching him.

I really have no idea what he's trying do, but I THINK he's claiming that if you switch +v to -v (i.e. the other observer's frame), then [square root of (1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)] changes to [square root of (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)], therefore one observer sees a decrease in wavelength (moving away), but the other observer sees an increase, and thus will claim the first observer is approaching him rather than moving away. Contradiction. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Here's the mistake: when you derive those equations, you must take into account your velocity AND the velocity of the pulse. If you want to look at A from the frame of B and change coordinates to -v, whatever speed the pulse had at B, say -u, now becomes +u when you place the source at A. The two changes in sign cancel and any derivation relative to the two observers stays invariant.

So far this is true, but now he claims that as you approach the speed of light, both the numerator and denominator go to zero, so instead of infinite mass you get 0/0 which is zero. He then naturally concludes that all matter turns into light/photon field (i.e. zero mass) when it reaches the speed of light. No seriously, that's what he's saying.

To be completely fair, though, to an average layman, "zero mass" sounds as sensible as "infinite mass." So if you're making the case that it 'sounds crazy,' I suggest you try another tack.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:DeltaPunch: No, he doesn't. In fact it's quite possible that he's just a rambling idiot with absolutely no training in mathematics or physics. Take a look at his paper. Don't worry, there's no math!

So far this is true, but now he claims that as you approach the speed of light, both the numerator and denominator go to zero, so instead of infinite mass you get 0/0 which is zero. He then naturally concludes that all matter turns into light/photon field (i.e. zero mass) when it reaches the speed of light. No seriously, that's what he's saying.

To be completely fair, though, to an average layman, "zero mass" sounds as sensible as "infinite mass." So if you're making the case that it 'sounds crazy,' I suggest you try another tack.

Sure, but it's not so much the conclusion that's crazy -- his argument is not mathematically correct and he's stating wild conclusions without any evidence. No matter how crazy infinite mass sounds, at least I could derive it for you from first principles, using sound mathematics, and without any handwaving or ambiguity.

So far this is true, but now he claims that as you approach the speed of light, both the numerator and denominator go to zero, so instead of infinite mass you get 0/0 which is zero. He then naturally concludes that all matter turns into light/photon field (i.e. zero mass) when it reaches the speed of light. No seriously, that's what he's saying.

Had you ever traveled at the speed of light, as I have, you would know this is true.

DeltaPunch:I really have no idea what he's trying do, but I THINK he's claiming that if you switch +v to -v (i.e. the other observer's frame), then [square root of (1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)] changes to [square root of (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)], therefore one observer sees a decrease in wavelength (moving away), but the other observer sees an increase, and thus will claim the first observer is approaching him rather than moving away. Contradiction. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Oh, okay then. I trust you, you sound totally legit.

TFA:Mr. Khilji's paper seems to be gaining momentum which is clear from the read history of the article in the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) which is a Digital Library portal for researchers in Astronomy and Physics, operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) under a NASA grant. So far the Reads' number of the paper is found highest among the contemporary research articles of the same issue of the journal. This paper can also be seen on some more popular sites such as National Research Council Canada, High Beam Research etc.

Meanwhile, the Head of the Mathematics Department in Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Prof. Zafar Ahsan, who is among the "Top 100 Scientists of the World 2011" by International Biographical Centre, Cambridge (England), and a recipient of "The International EINSTEIN AWARD (2011), has appreciated Khilji's work in his comments as follows...

...Or, wait. Since apparently everyone with a professional interest in the subject is reading it, maybe we should see it denounced by someone other than a guy who "really [has] no idea what he's trying to do".

Not to mention, lightspeed being a conversion point from matter to light photon particles is actually a hell of a lot more believable than infinite mass at rest.

/ Bachelors major in physics- I was always scared that I was that kid, though I think got that particular type of maniacal hubris out of my system in junior high school trigonometry (I realised after an embarassing incident that proof and rigor are important, and that teachers are usually right, but not necessarily good at demonstrating it). I did go off the deep end towards the end of uni, but thankfully it was by obsessing over voting theory, which has a tendency to do that to you.

// Nowadays I can't even remember off the top of my head what small gamma is

starsrift:...Or, wait. Since apparently everyone with a professional interest in the subject is reading it, maybe we should see it denounced by someone other than a guy who "really [has] no idea what he's trying to do".

Fine. The author, to use the most charitable description possible, is tragically confused about when to use plus signs and when to use that other kind. In addition, he hangs on to the classic crackpot's conceit: that the discrepancy between his ill-considered work and reality is due not to, say, a misplaced minus sign, but rather to some vast truth which only he is privileged to see.

Not to mention, lightspeed being a conversion point from matter to light photon particles is actually a hell of a lot more believable than infinite mass at rest.

Infinite rest mass was never an issue (unless I've skimmed past something even more insane than what I remember reading), but conversion from conventional matter to light as a consequence of speed is further out than you might think. Fermions and bosons do not work that way. You might be surprised at just how thoroughly this stuff has been contemplated, calculated, and tested. If you want to revolutionize humanity's understanding of the universe, you're going to need more than a quarter ounce and some pathetically sloppy math.

/Has plenty of idea what he's doing with special relativity.//And has had occasion to measure Doppler shifts in light. Whaddya know, they come out just as Einstein calculated.

starsrift:DeltaPunch: I really have no idea what he's trying do, but I THINK he's claiming that if you switch +v to -v (i.e. the other observer's frame), then [square root of (1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)] changes to [square root of (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)], therefore one observer sees a decrease in wavelength (moving away), but the other observer sees an increase, and thus will claim the first observer is approaching him rather than moving away. Contradiction. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Oh, okay then. I trust you, you sound totally legit.

TFA: Mr. Khilji's paper seems to be gaining momentum which is clear from the read history of the article in the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) which is a Digital Library portal for researchers in Astronomy and Physics, operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) under a NASA grant. So far the Reads' number of the paper is found highest among the contemporary research articles of the same issue of the journal. This paper can also be seen on some more popular sites such as National Research Council Canada, High Beam Research etc.

Meanwhile, the Head of the Mathematics Department in Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Prof. Zafar Ahsan, who is among the "Top 100 Scientists of the World 2011" by International Biographical Centre, Cambridge (England), and a recipient of "The International EINSTEIN AWARD (2011), has appreciated Khilji's work in his comments as follows...

...Or, wait. Since apparently everyone with a professional interest in the subject is reading it, maybe we should see it denounced by someone other than a guy who "really [has] no idea what he's trying to do".

Not to mention, lightspeed being a conversion point from matter to light photon particles is actually a hell of a lot more believable than infinite mass at rest.

The reason DeltaPunch (and I) "have no idea" what Mr. Mohammed Javed Khilji is trying to do in the paper is that he is not laying things out properly and being rather vague. More to the point, I believe that Mr. Khilji is a charlatan and/or a crank and he is being deliberately obfuscatory. The paper likely has no results, no real scientific merit. The nature of the mistake outlined by DeltaPunch is the kind of thing that would have been discovered by thousands of physics majors every year, were it legit. Or at least a few dozen. Mr. Khilji probably does not even think the result is true.

A little research shows that the International Biographical Centre and the International Einstein Award are the products of what might be termed a "certificate mill", where an academic with lackluster credentials can send away a fee and receive an important sounding honor. There exist networks, journals, conferences, whose sole purpose is to promote and publish this kind of "research" and pad the vitae of the participants. Physics Essays may well be such a journal.

So what are the tradeoffs - benefits and harm in this kind of bunk being published? Ignore disgust at the purely scientific aspects for a moment. On the one hand, maybe a high school science teacher gets a little bit of prestige and feels better about his job, which may in turn affect the attitudes of his students about science. On the other hand, if public funds are being diverted to this sort of venture, there are grounds for outrage.

This reminds me of the case of Mohammed El Naschie, who recently brought a libel suit against Nature magazine and lost. He was editor of an academic journal that published many of his own articles and had little if any peer review. The articles are BS along the lines of Khilji's work, but perhaps more sophisticated. He was exposed when real physicists complained about the journal being "bundled" with more legitimate journals by the publisher (Elsevier) for sale to university libraries.